Should You Patent Every Invention? Legal and Strategic Insights You Should Know

When people think of inventions, the first thing that often comes to mind is a patent. After all, patents grant inventors exclusive rights over their creations, protecting them from competitors. But here’s the key question: must all inventions be patented? The answer is no—and the reasons lie in legal, commercial, and strategic considerations.

Did you know? Some of the world’s most valuable innovations—like the Coca-Cola formula—were never patented, yet remain protected to this day.

Patents are powerful, but not always necessary

A patent provides 20 years of exclusivity in exchange for public disclosure. To qualify, an invention must be novel, non-obvious, and industrially applicable.

However, not all inventions need this route. Some businesses rely on trade secrets or first-mover advantage instead. Coca-Cola, for instance, avoided patenting its recipe to keep it secret for over a century.

Conversely, in pharmaceuticals, patents are essential to recover years of R&D costs and prevent immediate replication by competitors.

What cannot be patented?

Certain things are excluded from patent protection under global laws, such as:

• Abstract ideas and algorithms – e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014) limited software patents
• Laws of nature and natural discoveries – Myriad Genetics (2013) ruled isolated human genes unpatentable.
• Medical treatment methods – Barred in countries like India and Europe, although medical devices used in such procedures may still be patented.
• Inventions against public order, health, or morality.
• Plants and animals – Often excluded, though microorganisms may qualify.

Strategic considerations

Even when an invention qualifies, filing may not always be the best strategic move. Inventors and businesses must weigh several key factors:

• Disclosure risk: Once filed, your idea becomes public.
• High costs: Filing and maintaining international patents is expensive.
• Enforcement: Defending patents in court takes time and money.

 If secrecy is practical and reverse-engineering is difficult, trade secrets can offer indefinite protection.

Real-world lessons: To Patent or Not to Patent

These cases illustrate why not all inventions are patented and how different protection strategies work:

• Apple v. Samsung (2011–2018): Apple used patents to protect its iPhone ecosystem, leading to years of litigation and billions in damages—showing the power of patents.
• DuPont v. Kolon (2011): Trade secret theft of Kevlar technology led to a $919 million verdict, proving that secrecy can sometimes outweigh patent protection.
• Novartis v. India (2013): India’s Supreme Court rejected a drug patent for Glivec, emphasizing that incremental improvements don’t always qualify as inventions.

Conclusion

Not every invention needs a patent. The right protection depends on your industry, business goals, and risk tolerance.

Before asking, “Can I patent this?”, also ask:

“Should I patent this — or keep it a secret, or use another form of protection?”